Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real problem is the granting of citizenship to people born on this soil as a birthright - that's what needs to be changed, ASAP, but it'll probably require a constitutional amendment to do so.
I agree but it won't require a constitutional amendment just a re-visit by the SC to determine what the intent of birthright citizenship actually was by the writers of the 14th. Too many politicians especially on the left have a vested interest in not doing so because they won't like the results of that.
The real problem is the granting of citizenship to people born on this soil as a birthright - that's what needs to be changed, ASAP, but it'll probably require a constitutional amendment to do so.
True, however unless it were made retroactive to say 1986 it won't help us. Not that I am for any kind of retroactive laws. As it stands Anchor babies are in fact recognized as legal citizens.
True, however unless it were made retroactive to say 1986 it won't help us. Not that I am for any kind of retroactive laws. As it stands Anchor babies are in fact recognized as legal citizens.
Cutting off any new kids born in the US to 2 illegal alien parents would chase off many illegal aliens right there.
I agree but it won't require a constitutional amendment just a re-visit by the SC to determine what the intent of birthright citizenship actually was by the writers of the 14th. Too many politicians especially on the left have a vested interest in not doing so because they won't like the results of that.
An amendment is interpreted as what is properly ratified, not what an author may have intended. The U.S. Supreme Court weighs in once an actual case is able to reach their level by its merits, it isn't just a whim of policy. It's amazing to look over this thread, the membership here at C-D has changed a little bit for the participants.
As it stands the law allows it. Personally I am not for birth right citizenship. I also think that we can take some ideas that other countries put into law.
You want to immigrate to the USA? Better be able to show that you have the financial means to live here.
Non-native citizens can not hold a civil service job, elected office or own property. ( you can lease for up to 30 years)
Must check in to an immigration office every 3 months to reverify your financial status.
Visa overstays result in huge fines and possible deportation.
As it stands the law allows it. Personally I am not for birth right citizenship. I also think that we can take some ideas that other countries put into law.
You want to immigrate to the USA? Better be able to show that you have the financial means to live here.
Non-native citizens can not hold a civil service job, elected office or own property. ( you can lease for up to 30 years)
Must check in to an immigration office every 3 months to reverify your financial status.
Visa overstays result in huge fines and possible deportation.
Agreed but a person who gets US citizenship should be allowed to own property; legal aliens not so much.
Agreed but a person who gets US citizenship should be allowed to own property; legal aliens not so much.
That threw me too, as a general basis in a country there shouldn't be any differences between citizens (the "Equal Protection Clause", which is another part of the 14th Amendment). I've seen it raised on the forum that immigrants should not be able to sponsor other immigrants after they naturalize. My counter was that my youngest stepdaughter came here at age 8, she might even find a spouse that wouldn't even be from her home country.
Legal Permanent Residents generally have the same rights as U.S. citizens here (including gun ownership), without the ability to vote, have jury duty, or most elected offices...
True, however unless it were made retroactive to say 1986 it won't help us. Not that I am for any kind of retroactive laws. As it stands Anchor babies are in fact recognized as legal citizens.
It wouldn't be made retroactive I am sure but yes the changes that have taken place in our culture due to birthright citizenship being assumed for children born from illegal alien parents for decades is permanent. However, we can prevent further dilution of our culture in this manner and it would save us mega bucks in taxes because as non-citizens we would no longer have to provide welfare benefits to them. It would also deter further illegal immigration where the attraction and motivation is to give birth on our soil to tap into our tax coffers. It is one of the incentives that brings them.
Cutting off any new kids born in the US to 2 illegal alien parents would chase off many illegal aliens right there.
how would you accomplish that...push the baby back in??? LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
